Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Music Industry Plotting to Control Your Record Collection
The Wall Street Journal | 12-17-2001 | Thomas E. Weber

Posted on 12/17/2001 10:34:47 AM PST by rustbucket

The WSJ has an article about how the record industry may soon try to lease recordings rather than sell them. If you fall behind on your "rent" payments, your music collection evaporates.

Also, new copy-protected CDs apparently redefine the concept of owning a CD. If you buy one of these, you may not be able to transfer the music to your computer or burn your favorite music onto your own CDs or transfer songs to MP3 players.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last
I plan to steer clear of CDs labeled copy-protected and complain to the stores that sell them.
1 posted on 12/17/2001 10:34:47 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Screw them. Real musicians and real fans already know that the recording industry is swimming towards the deadpool; this just means they are sinking faster.

Guerilla music, arise!!

2 posted on 12/17/2001 10:38:09 AM PST by dandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
This is news? har
3 posted on 12/17/2001 10:39:20 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
The WSJ has an article about how the record industry may soon try to lease recordings rather than sell them...

Well, good luck to them.

You wouldn't have a link, by chance, would you?

4 posted on 12/17/2001 10:40:46 AM PST by VoiceOfBruck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
mp3's all the way ..... I'll occasionally go buy a CD if I really like it, but I've spent well over 6000.00 so far on RIAA products.
5 posted on 12/17/2001 10:41:06 AM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VoiceOfBruck
The more the RIAA etal claim to have 100% invincible methods, the more they ensure there will be hackers breaking it. See www.cdfreaks.com for example.
6 posted on 12/17/2001 10:45:25 AM PST by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
If the hardware guys (computers, consumer electronics) can figure out how to cope with price reductions of 10-30%/year, it's time to see the software guys (releasing mostly crappy, lazy "music") get with the program and do the same.

If CDs were $5.99 instead of $15.99 (cost of production: about $1.25 fully packaged in volume) the vastly increased sales due to decreased piracy would result in a much better bottom line. But they really fear the precedent, so are exploring copy protection.

Problem for them, though, is simple: either the protection is cracked, or people just won't buy. Period. They need to learn to compete instead of paying lobbiests in D.C.

7 posted on 12/17/2001 10:46:44 AM PST by Hank Rearden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
From my cold dead hands.
8 posted on 12/17/2001 10:46:55 AM PST by Mr.Clark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
At MP3.com you can download, perfectly legally, MP3 recordings of thousands of musicians. For genres like jazz, where a lot of talented musiacians never get recording contracts, MP3.com enables them to publish their music and get a little bit of money. The vast majority of musicians earn their living by teaching and playing live or for commercial recordings. The recording industry is a corrupt dinosaur.
9 posted on 12/17/2001 10:47:37 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dandelion
This is a laughable idea. Any form of "copy protection" will be summarily hacked through with a very simple program that you will be able to download for free on the internet. The music corporations just have to face the fact that the old way of doing business is no longer valid or acceptable to the masses. Maybe these recording "artists" will also have to realize that they're no longer going to be billionairs on record sales alone, and instead look for more ways to generate revenue from touring and movie and commercial use. I myself have not paid for music in the last 5 or 6 years now. I don't see myself starting to anytime soon. Why should I when I can just turn on the radio and hear the same songs played in constant rotation all day long? JIM
10 posted on 12/17/2001 10:50:53 AM PST by Jim Pelosi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
Correct! How much of that $15.99 do the musicians see? Unless they have good lawyers, the answer is often zero. There are a handful of star acts that could lose money from people copying CDs, but to let the record companies force travesties like DMCA down our throats is to give up our rights mainly for the benefits of these greedy, corrupt, mafia-infiltrated, tax-dodging, nose candy snorting bufoons.
11 posted on 12/17/2001 10:52:06 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: eno_
I find it amusing that a guitar wizard like Charlie Hunter can craft beautiful yet challenging CDs and sell them for $11.99, but the mindless, two-chord crud that Limp Bizkit churns out is $18.99.
12 posted on 12/17/2001 10:55:36 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: rustbucket
Hey, I say to them GO FOR IT, and in the meantime I'll be busy starting up my own recording company that releases music without such protections.
14 posted on 12/17/2001 11:00:27 AM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VoiceOfBruck
No link, sorry.
15 posted on 12/17/2001 11:00:30 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Breaking copy protection on a music CD is trivally easy: Make a high quality analog copy. Granted this is not an ideally clean copy, but the resulting MP3 could easily be indistiguishable to the human ear and then could be copied digitally from there. At twenty bucks a pop, they ensure that we'll have plenty of time and energy to spend on doing these things too.
16 posted on 12/17/2001 11:01:04 AM PST by Johassen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Johassen
Make a high quality analog copy

Exactly.

If it can be played through speakers then it can be recorded to another source. Sure, you might not be able to "RIP" it to an MP3, etc -- at least not at first -- someone will figure out how to do that.

Remember, DVD encryption was "uncrackable" as well :)

17 posted on 12/17/2001 11:04:51 AM PST by TexRef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
The ONLY CD I ever bought that was worth the price was the TOP GUN Soundtrack
18 posted on 12/17/2001 11:06:43 AM PST by DeckTheHallsHolly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Screw CDs! LONG LIVE VINYL!
19 posted on 12/17/2001 11:07:45 AM PST by Rockinfreakapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Anyone remember the copy protection on Lotus 1-2-3 and how it was removed when people voted with their dollars?

The best thing people could do with copy-protected cds is buy them and then return them, so that everyone along the line deals with the hassle and never, ever forgets how much the public hates to pay for the privilege of being called a thief.

20 posted on 12/17/2001 11:09:51 AM PST by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
With all you folks wanting stuff for free, almost reads like Democratic Underground..
21 posted on 12/17/2001 11:10:23 AM PST by Jack Wilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket

Recording Industry?

22 posted on 12/17/2001 11:13:03 AM PST by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Wilson
Here's a quote from the WSJ article that directly answers your 'stuff for free' claim.

I've ripped hundreds of CDs onto my computer but I'm not a criminal or a pirate. These are all CDs that I paid (or overpaid) for. I often prefer to listen to the music I've bought on my computer. My PC has decent stereo speakers, and I spend a lot of time working there. But it's more than that. With the songs on my hard drive, I have instant access to my entire collection -- much better than rooting through piles of discs. I also like to transfer the files to my portable MP3 player so I can listen at work without schlepping CDs back and forth. And I take songs from several albums and burn them onto custom-mix CDs ("Still More 80s") for the car.

Copy-proof CDs won't let me do any of that. Certainly record companies are entitled to take measures to stymie widespread copying, in which hundreds or thousands of illegal duplicates are made from a single CD. But somehow the legacy of Napster has given all copying a bad name.

Did you know that under U.S. copyright law, it's generally considered permissible to make copies of music you've purchased? "It's completely legal," explains Jessica Litman, a law professor at Wayne State University and the author of "Digital Copyright." As long as you're making a copy for private, noncommercial use, you're pretty much in the clear. File-sharing services have gotten into trouble by enabling copying on such a massive scale that it's not really noncommercial even if no money changes hands.

23 posted on 12/17/2001 11:15:23 AM PST by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jack Wilson
It's not about wanting stuff for free - it's about selling a product that people want, for a fair price, and MAKING SURE THE ARTISTS GET PAID TOO. None of the above is happening in the recording industry. A few select artists will make money - but those artists who live "high on the hog" usually do so on the "company credit"... once their records stop selling (either because the record company deems it, or they weren't any good in the first place) the mansions and the cars go back to the bank. After that, they have nothing.
24 posted on 12/17/2001 11:19:35 AM PST by dandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
bookmark
25 posted on 12/17/2001 11:26:11 AM PST by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Wilson
< "With all you folks wanting stuff for free, almost reads like Democratic Underground.." >

Don't click on this.....You can't have any!

Told you.

26 posted on 12/17/2001 11:27:19 AM PST by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Wonder if the industry will try to get a piece of the new satellite radio services......?
27 posted on 12/17/2001 11:29:34 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Music Industry Plotting to Control Your Record Collection

I thought it was just gov't that wanted to control my life?

Maybe this 'phenom' (control) is just endemic to the human race (women want to control men, men want to control women, parents want to control the kids - kids want -and do- control parents) ...

28 posted on 12/17/2001 11:31:34 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockinfreakapotamus
Reel-to-reel RULES!
29 posted on 12/17/2001 11:32:37 AM PST by Electron Wizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
One word: DIVX
30 posted on 12/17/2001 11:38:49 AM PST by william clark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eno_
How much of that $15.99 do the musicians see? Unless they have good lawyers, the answer is often zero.

Well, thats not really true. The only reason that the "musician" does not actually get that money is usually because most of their "profit" goes to pay back the record company for advances, equipment, clothes etc...

The more established a musician is, the more they will see. Its hard to make money off one album or your "first" album, because of all the money in advances that you have to take..... and pay back.

I do not want to defend the "music industry", because in general, its slimey. But many people in this debate just do not understand how much money the typical act receives in the form of advances from record lables. Groups such as TLC and the Goo Goo Dolls found this out the hard way. They sold millions, only to find out they owed their record company money.

31 posted on 12/17/2001 11:41:28 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
I find it amusing that a guitar wizard like Charlie Hunter can craft beautiful yet challenging CDs and sell them for $11.99, but the mindless, two-chord crud that Limp Bizkit churns out is $18.99.

I personally find it amusing that poster's always claim that CD's by "popular" artists cost this much when places such as Best Buy and Circuit City sell them for $11.99 to $12.99, and thats usually regular price. You will only pay $16.99 to $18.99 when you are at a music store, usually in a mall, that only sells CDs, posters, etc... These stores hate the "Electronic Superstores" who lower CD prices to the point that they are breaking even or losing money just so you come in and browse, and hope you walk out with that new DVD player and widescreen T.V. when all you came for was the new release CD.

32 posted on 12/17/2001 11:45:27 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
But somehow the legacy of Napster has given all copying a bad name.

Yeh, those two dozen Napster users gave all the legal copiers a bad name. Right. Millions upon millions were using Napster. If it were not for the brats of the world wanting free sruff, then copying would not have a bad name. I'm sorry, I just do not buy this "I just want to copy these so I can listen to them 0n my computer" arguments.

33 posted on 12/17/2001 11:50:19 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dandelion
It's not about wanting stuff for free - it's about selling a product that people want, for a fair price,

Uh, when was the las ttime you were forced at gun point to pay too much for a CD you knew would suck anyway? Where do you get the idea that you should get something for a "fair price". It sounds nice, but until those who MAKE THE MUSIC decide to not be a part of the RIAA, then too bad. Hell, artists with millions upon millons, like the Rolling Stones, or the (living)Beatles, or Russel Simmons could never use RIAA resources again, and totally buck the system, making their own distribution outlets and whatnot. You people need to ask yourselves "WHY!, Why are the musicians not leaving the RIAA".

34 posted on 12/17/2001 11:55:20 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
The price differential for say, the average 15 year old New York City fan is meaningless.

His options are: pay $18.99 for the CD in a Manhattan store or take a commuter bus to a New Jersey/Long Island music superstore and pay $5-7 for the bus, $11.99 for the CD and waste two hours of their time in the bargain.

35 posted on 12/17/2001 11:58:56 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
It is my understanding that bars that feature live music are now being sued by the RIAA. For royalities? Now I do not understand how this can be. A bar hires a band (for a lot of money) the band plays, the band get's paid and later the bar is sued! Can you explain this. thanks
36 posted on 12/17/2001 12:10:54 PM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
How much of that $15.99 do the musicians see?

Well, the publisher sees about 1.45 cents per minute after the initial recording of a song. It's actually much more complicated than that because there's a variety of different types of agreements producers, songwriters, and artists (not always the same people) can enter into.

Unless they have good lawyers, the answer is often zero.

I'm afraid you're right--a performer or songwriter can completely relinquish their rights if they don't attend closely to the type of agreements they sign.

37 posted on 12/17/2001 12:14:58 PM PST by Die Zaubertuba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
http://www.stoppoliceware.com/
38 posted on 12/17/2001 12:17:33 PM PST by Rustynailww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
It is my understanding that bars that feature live music are now being sued by the RIAA. For royalities? Now I do not understand how this can be. A bar hires a band (for a lot of money) the band plays, the band get's paid and later the bar is sued! Can you explain this. thanks

I think you may be referring to isolated cases where the RIAA has attempted to sue bars who hire cover bands. I think technically, by the letter of the law, you or I can not set up at "Joe's Bar" and play Guns N Roses or Beatles tunes without the RIAA's permission. Of course, there are doznes or more bars in almost every major/minor city who have acts three or more times a week - and of course, they play cover tunes. This is how all bands start.

I may be wrong about what they are trying to file suit over. Its sounds silly that the RIAA would do this considering that "cover bands" have been around since the beginning of music.

I am not familar with any of these suits. It may actually be that they are trying to stop "Tribute" bands, who dress up like the performer, and do all of their songs. There are actually a few well known "tribute" bands that tour on a regional or national basis. Im not sure if these bands get "permission" or what.

39 posted on 12/17/2001 12:39:58 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Thanks for bringing that up. I sometimes forget that not everyone lives in a suburban or semi-rural area. I just can not relate to big cities....
40 posted on 12/17/2001 12:41:26 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Looks like Universal will be the first...
41 posted on 12/17/2001 12:53:56 PM PST by StoneColdGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: dandelion
"Guerilla music, arise!!"

It ain't about the music man. It is about pop culture, and pop culture is the last thread that connects most people to an interesting life. They (we as a collective entity) are not going to give it up. I will, but society won't. I wish it were not so.
43 posted on 12/17/2001 1:01:42 PM PST by gjenkins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
It is my understanding that bars that feature live music are now being sued by the RIAA. For royalities? Now I do not understand how this can be. A bar hires a band (for a lot of money) the band plays, the band get's paid and later the bar is sued! Can you explain this. thanks

It gets better than that, the RIAA has tried to muscle bars for RIAA "protection" fees for the songs played on tv commercials! If a bar has a tv (with audio) on, they could be strong armed into paying for RIAA license fees.

What is ridiculous is that the sponsor company (Burger King for example) has already paid for the licensing of that song for the ad.

Cover bands get a free ride from the bars' RIAA agreements but I've even heard of RIAA goons aproaching the bands for a cut of the receipts of the night's take.

44 posted on 12/17/2001 1:02:36 PM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
That is exactly what they (RIAA) are doing. They go to bars demanding thousands of dollars in royalties, if the bar doesn't pay up, they sue. Conpletely turned me against the music industry. If they are going to sue anyone they should sue the band playing songs the RIAA feels it owns. They only sue the bars because that know the bar either pays or the bar is closed and sold. Bunch of blood sucking creeps, another instance of lawers screwing over the public to make a few bucks.

Once we are finished with terrorists I think a war against lawers would be a good idea.

45 posted on 12/17/2001 1:03:54 PM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
The only reason that the "musician" does not actually get that money is usually because most of their "profit" goes to pay back the record company for advances, equipment, clothes etc...
Contrast that with book publishing which is, still, a higher-class operation: No respectable publisher would dare charge you for the work of an indexing specialist or copy editor. These charges in musicians' contracts are meant to keep them permanently in debt to record companies by creating an uncontrolable stream of charges that can be added to the musicians' advances. It is highly unethical if not outright fraudulent.
46 posted on 12/17/2001 1:10:36 PM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: jpsb
That is exactly what they (RIAA) are doing. They go to bars demanding thousands of dollars in royalties, if the bar doesn't pay up, they sue. Conpletely turned me against the music industry. If they are going to sue anyone they should sue the band playing songs the RIAA feels it owns. They only sue the bars because that know the bar either pays or the bar is closed and sold. Bunch of blood sucking creeps, another instance of lawers screwing over the public to make a few bucks.

I remember a few years when cable companies went after sports bars for showing pay per view events and scrambled channels. I don't recall what became of the issue.

48 posted on 12/17/2001 1:36:25 PM PST by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Johassen
Breaking copy protection on a music CD is trivally easy: Make a high quality analog copy.

You don't have to get that archaic!! If you're playing digital audio or video, copy protected or no, at some point it has to go through a D/A converter or frame buffer....which means it has to exist somewhere for some trivial amount of time as raw digital data. As long as this is true, there will always be creative digital methods to "cleanse" protected data.

As one guy said back at an early IEEE1394 DV standards meeting "if you can see it or here it once, you can copy it many times!"

49 posted on 12/17/2001 1:53:51 PM PST by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
here ==> hear. "Hear hear!"
50 posted on 12/17/2001 1:59:25 PM PST by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson